Jump to content

User:MDP23/Desk/Archive/Three

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This case page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the talk page.
The following is an archived discussion between an advocate and an advocee. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer:Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: content dispute

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer:Discussion in Talk Page has failed despite my position being wholly or partially supported by several users. Bogus complaints and personal attacks have resulted.See my talk page User_talk:Hkelkar or Talk:Tipu Sultan.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: Some objective perspective as to the edit war presently going on and hopefully more experienced users could convince the fundamentalist (IMHO) elements from keeping their jingiosm off wikipedia and/or provide a solution acceptable to all.Personally I am happy to cooperate with any objective mediators.

Summary:

The issue is as follows. Tipu Sultan was the name of a Mohammedian ruler in the Kingdom of Mysore in Southern India in the 18th Century.Muslims in India generally regard him as a saint and have a kind of Rasputin syndrome when it comes to the figure, as well as a Cult of personality. He is regarded as a "patriot" for resisting (but ultimately failing to prevent) British colonial incursions into the area. However, historians such as Sita Ram Goel and others have raised issues with him. There are claims that he inflicted massive genocides on Hindus in the region, as well as his contempt for the local language (Kannada) which he actively tried to suppress and relpace with the more Semitic language Urdu. As of this moment, I have written the section here as objectively as I can, listing the other side of the debate (previously, the Goel & PCN Raja side was mentioned only briefly and ridiculed, together with apparent "refutations" of the claims of genocide with no citations or sources whatsoever).However, the users I have listed as (of the other side) have formed an informal cabal and have been mass-reverting to the POV & OR version, making ethnic/religious attacks (I have been called a "Hindu Fundamentalist" which is amusing as I am not even a Hindu) in the Talk page. Further POV in the article is where he is mentioned as a "Patriot","Linguist" and a "Freedom Fighter" (in the latest version as of now). This is not written in a neutral narrative and maintained as fact despite the points that:

He couldn't be a "patriot" of anything as India as a nation did not exist back then (he was the monarch of a tiny and relatively insignificant kingdom and his loyalties lay exclusively to his lineage/tribe/kingdom and loyalty to a kingdom is hardly "patriotic"). However, he is generally regarded as a "patriot" though the article does not use that narrative.
It is mentioned that he is a "Linguist" based on a single sentence in a partisan website. Yet, no linguistic works are cited. It is true that he was bilingual, perhaps even trilingual. However, many people of nobility spoke multiple languages in India and none of them are regarded as "Linguists".If he was a "scholar of language" then surely his works would have been documented.None of those (I think nonexistent) works are cited though.
The term "Freedom Fighter" (mentioned/that was mentioned) is equally laughable as there was no "Freedom" to fight for. India was divided into kingdoms, principalities, military dictatorships and Islamic theocracies.Opposition to the colonialist British does not constitute "Fighting for Freedom" as Tipu only cared for his kingdom and his authoritarian rule over the region.He is "regarded" (irrationally) as a "Freedom Fighter" but again, the narrative is not neutral.

I have made corrections as of now but the users may revert as no resolution has been achieved in the talk page.Muslim (presumably) users have even asserted that because Tipu is regarded as a "saint" he should be respected on wikipedia. I have responded that his "sainthood" (bear in mind that no Islamic cleric has declared him a saint or any Mohammedian equivalent) is irrelevant to his status on wikipedia and our edits need to remain neutral and scholarly.No coherent response.

Furthermore, there is a contemporary controversy concerning him that has been deleted completely by the Mohammedian editors (still is as of the latest version at this time). The version where this was entered is here.

I believe that this edit is completely neutral and non-partisan but it was removed by the cabal and more insults made both in my user page and talk page.

I also believe that claims that he "fathered" or "originated" modern rocketry are absurdly exaggerated and his involvement with rockets (actually firecrackers) should be toned down and narrative neutralized.

ADD:User:Mujeerkhan has extended the olive branch, so to speak, and seems to be the most reasonable one of the lot. He is receptive to mediation as stated in the talk page.


UPDATE:User:Mujeerkhan tried to create a POV-fork AMA request at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Mujeerkan (presently a candidate for speedy deletion).I have copy-pasted his version of the summary (itself a copy-paste + POV'ised job of my original request).His version is below:

Mujeerkhan Asserts: The issue is as follows. Tipu Sultan was the name of a Indian ruler in the Kingdom of Mysore in Southern India in the 18th Century.He is regarded as a "patriot" for resisting (but ultimately failing to prevent) British colonial incursions into the area. Some users have made making ethnic/religious attacks against me and user User:Hkelkar ( as discussed in in the article) who has made statements like Islamic Thinkers Society which has links to terrorism, I tired to explain that this reference was [[1]] which i can say its similar to alzajeera but worth to be referred and [[2]] which is clearly indian website on human rights in India and when i tried to link this references to his references like [[3]] and [[4]] which both spread fundamentalist, extremist ideas that leads to communal hatred in india and when i tried to say that if the references stated by the other user is fundamentalist then why not yours, he said " Remove my verifiable edits and that is vandalism" and user TerryJ-Ho was against this idea.He also said that "entire countries in the muslim world that massacre non-muslims and spread hate against them" and user Mysorebhai warned him in this regard and User:Hkelkar"The fact remains that every single thing that I said was correct" . When i tired to make corrections in the articles which where edited by other/previous users which was not related to the "conflict" of the article, he remarked my efforts as "rubbish" and user Naziakhanum tired to explain her remarks were not answered by User:Hkelkar. For time there was a good discussion between both of us and suddenly he again showed his colours. when Shezaad786 tried to put up facts User:Hkelkar again said "nationalist/religious jingoism hard at work"

His other comments were

"but here we have a particularly nasty breed of localized Islamist tribalism at work" "mohammedian" term is a direct insult to muslims as they are followers of Allah and regard mohamad as a messenger. "fundamentalist nutbags reverted it anyway"

All these show he has acted in a racial, extremist, immoral, uncivil, hurting other relegious sentiments.


Talk page. in the article is where he is mentioned as a "Patriot","Linguist" and a "Freedom Fighter" .

He was a "linguist" [[5]](he was the monarch of a vast area of land and relatively significant kingdom)[[6]]
he is a "patriot" [[7]] is a indian post website which clearly shows and says "Tipu Sultan patriot" this was termed as partisan by User:Hkelkar
The term "Freedom Fighter" [[8]] clearly depicts him as the first freedom fighter of india.

All these terms were argued when there was credible evidence that linked the above terms to tipu. But at present this is not shown in the article as some user has edited them

Lastly, i had also given credible information on rocketry where tipu is mentioned as "perfected" for serious purposes [[9]] which is an indian defence website and The Indian President remarks on tipu [[10]]

This is from a leading indian newspaper which says tipu "fathered" rocketry [[11]], indian newspaper where the indian President wanted to know how tipu built the rocket [[12]] , indian newspaper [[13]]

On the issue of relegious tolerance and anti kannada there were a number of articles, website which were credible were also disapproved by other members which are mentioned and discussed Talk:Tipu Sultan I tired to "turn away" from some time but to no avail, i tried to warn him of edits which amounted to more than 3-4 a day. tried to negiotiate matters with him and also conflits between him and other members. If you have a clear look in the discussion you can find out that a reasonable members were against his ideas. There is a user vikramji who is a sock puppet of Vgowda as claimed by srs

Inspite of all the proff, articles which I/users have put forth were rejected by User:Hkelkar all the above inspite that the articles are from defence, newspapers, government website. The picture clearly shows that he wants to run the article on his own terms despite other members appeals.Also he does not take positive points from a point of view but insist to make rather all statements on negative terms. <Mujeerkhan>




Any discussion below here please


Hi. Good luck on your researching this topic and I hope to hear from you soon. I'll put this page in my watchlist.Hkelkar 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Some more information backing the persecution of Hindus by Tipu Sultan theory:


I believe that TerryJ-Ho is a partisan and not entirely reliable editor regarding this matter, given several intensely anti-Hindu views that he has expressed time and again on his talk page (the first few posts themselves) on User Talk:TerryJ-Ho. He has made similar accusations against Hindus before in Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh before and has been rather adequately refuted, after which he resorted to a rather memorable temper tantrum [14].

(plus, I recall seeing a post by him where he demanded that sources that declare themselves to be partisan and anti-Hindu be cited without qualification on the grounds that an anti-Hindu position is acceptable per his view). He has also made numerous pejorative remarks against Hindu women and Hindu children throughout wikipedia.

If you look at the references he cites, many of them are partisan. For instance, Bharat-Rakshak.com is a military site. The Indian Military is under mandate of being politically correct towards Indian Muslims, many of whom are Fundamentalists. The btconnect site is written by Dr."Sheik" Ali (the partisanship is, of course, quite obvious here).

The other references he sites are irrelevant to the dispute here and are clearly an attempt to color your perspective on what is a complex issue (read Californian Hindu textbook controversy carefully concerning this textbook business that he cites, for a slightly better perspective regarding false allegations made against the RSS by the organisation Friends of South Asia, an Islamist front operating out of Pakistan with links to terrorist organizations and a lobby group that has associations with the Communist Party of India, many of whose leaders such as Prakash Karat officially support and endorse Islamic terrorism).

The references he does cite that do pertain to the subject of the article do not support his views and, again, are meant as a smokescreen to try to muddle the issue.

Bear in mind that I take no position regarding this controversy. I do not contest, for instance, that he was a POPULAR leader (among Muslims and some relatively uninformed Hindus, at least). I do not contest that sourced information be kept. I do not contest the academic and non-partisan references that TerryJ-Ho cites above so long as they are relevant to the persecution dispute. TerryJ-Ho cites references that show that Tipu Sultan was a capable leader in order to use the faulty argument that his capability is proof of his tolerance. By that logic Hitler, and extremely capable leader with many achievements, would also be tolerant (forgive me for evoking Godwin's Law here, but I can't think of a better example right now). My dispute is not over capability, but over tolerance, and descriptions of attitudes that were impossible for that time per my reasoning in the Talk Page (btw if I was a "Hindu Fascist" then I would not make the argument that patriotism was impossible in the 17th century I would insist on it). I do contest the POV edits that take a position regarding the controversy that existed/exist/constantyl reverted.

I merely ask that both sides of the debate be represented in due proportionm, particularly the recent controversy regarding Tipu Sultan (I posted a diff of that edit on the AMA page itself). TerryJ-Ho wants to whitewash the issue completely, which is against the wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. Also, Sita Ram Goel, offers a scholarly perspective on the persecution theory [15](This is a non-partisan web site, not affiliated to any Hindu nationalist organization). Goel is a highly notable scholar in India who had peer-reviewed publications and has authored numerous books. He is a controversial scholar, but so are Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye'or and others frequently sourced on wikipedia (TerryJ-Ho did a WP:BLP violation on Pipes on Babri Masjid [16] but was instantly reverted and admonished by an admin) but the notability of these scholars supercedes the controversies surrounding them.Hkelkar 02:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, here are some additional refs:

"Annual reports of the Portuguese Franciscans in India, 1713-1833" by Achilles Meersman P238.


"The Colors of Violence: Cultural Identities, Religion, and Conflict" by Sudhir Kakar P17


Now bear in mind that this book opposes Hindu Nationalism and is critical of it in general

"Kerala Under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan" by C. K. Kareem (A Muslim, no less!) P 187

"The Protected Princes of India" by William Lee-Warner (Page 71)

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00185953&id=GciCSpe1OOMC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=The+Protected+Princes+of+India



I ask that these also be cited.Hkelkar 02:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)




Tipu Sultan Affair

Some items that I think pertain to this case Biography[17]Tipu's contribution to India on Indian Millitary's web site[18]Indian Defence SiteTelegraph[19][20]

In India, the collapse of the Mughal empire created a power vacuum that was filled by the East India Company. Its administrative and military machine gradually reshaped the subcontinent to suit British priorities. After the defeat of Tipu Sultan in 1799, British control of the subcontinent was assured. With this, the character of the European presence in Asia changed and rigid assumptions of ‘East' and ‘West' began to replace the more fluid boundaries between different cultures.[21][22][23][24][25] ...against these all articles Kelakar has chosen the preferred media of Islam bashers and the Hindu fascist organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh er ..supported site Bharat Vani]. In short Kelakar is presenting an alternate and in many ways personal point of view that hardly finds mention in reputed and responsible history books.[26][27][28][29] TerryJ-Ho 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that TerryJ-Ho is a partisan and not entirely reliable editor regarding this matter, given several intensely anti-Hindu views that he has expressed time and again on his talk page (the first few posts themselves) on User Talk:TerryJ-Ho. He has made similar accusations against Hindus before in Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh before and has been rather adequately refuted, after which he resorted to a rather memorable temper tantrum [30].
  • Do you think your's being the last statement on that page means you have won the argument.Somehow I am reminded of the exact words Subhash uses in similar situations..(Tamper Tantrums)...Did you have same nuresery and secondary school teachers too? - Bad joke but I find too many coincidences82.44.188.125 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(plus, I recall seeing a post by him where he demanded that sources that declare themselves to be partisan and anti-Hindu be cited without qualification on the grounds that an anti-Hindu position is acceptable per his view)

  • Please cite evidence for the above 82.44.188.125 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

. He has also made numerous pejorative remarks against Hindu women and Hindu children throughout wikipedia.

If you look at the references he cites, many of them are partisan. For instance, Bharat-Rakshak.com is a military site. The Indian Military is under mandate of being politically correct towards Indian Muslims, many of whom are Fundamentalists. The btconnect site is written by Dr."Sheik" Ali (the partisanship is, of course, quite obvious here).

The other references he sites are irrelevant to the dispute here and are clearly an attempt to color your perspective on what is a complex issue (read Californian Hindu textbook controversy carefully concerning this textbook business that he cites, for a slightly better perspective regarding false allegations made against the RSS by the organisation Friends of South Asia, an Islamist front operating out of Pakistan with links to terrorist organizations and a lobby group that has associations with the Communist Party of India, many of whose leaders such as Prakash Karat officially support and endorse Islamic terrorism).

  • So should we now not say you are explicitly defaming an orgainsation without proof ..What evidence is there that they have terrorist links?? or where has Prakash Karat endorsed Islamist terrorism.
His blog, for once, where he routinely praises Osama bin Laden.Hkelkar 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

They all are relevent as they put into perspective Kalekar's position.82.44.188.125

Yes, defamation of users who post scholarly edits is a standard tactic of Islamist wikipedians.Hkelkar 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The references he does cite that do pertain to the subject of the article do not support his views and, again, are meant as a smokescreen to try to muddle the issue.

Bear in mind that I take no position regarding this controversy. I do not contest, for instance, that he was a POPULAR leader (among Muslims and some relatively uninformed Hindus, at least)

What does that even mean?Hkelkar 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

. I do not contest that sourced information be kept. I do not contest the academic and non-partisan references that TerryJ-Ho cites above so long as they are relevant to the persecution dispute.

  • Yes, many of them have referred to the injustice and Hindu killing speak and shown the proper perspective82.44.188.125 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As well as Muslim killings from Direct Action Day to 9/11 and the Mumbai Bombings, which can be seen in any major newspaper.
Anyway, the relevance to this debate is... what exactly?Hkelkar 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

TerryJ-Ho cites references that show that Tipu Sultan was a capable leader in order to use the faulty argument that his capability is proof of his tolerance. By that logic Hitler, and extremely capable leader with many achievements, would also be tolerant (forgive me for evoking Godwin's Law here, but I can't think of a better example right now). My dispute is not over capability, but over tolerance, and descriptions of attitudes that were impossible for that time per my reasoning in the Talk Page (btw if I was a "Hindu Fascist" then I would not make the argument that patriotism was impossible in the 17th century I would insist on it). I do contest the POV edits that take a position regarding the controversy that existed/exist/constantyl reverted.

I merely ask that both sides of the debate be represented in due proportionm, particularly the recent controversy regarding Tipu Sultan (I posted a diff of that edit on the AMA page itself).

Yes, there are always two sides of an issue but then depends on how strong is the other side and who are the other sides themselves..Do they have an agenda..What is that agenda..not all miniscule and niche view can be cited specially if they come from orgainsations and people with hard views and agenda...82.44.188.125 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Yes the sources I cited (Western, Muslim, Scholarly) are all "Hindu Bastards", right? Paranoia seems to be another trait of Islamofascists it seems.Hkelkar 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


TerryJ-Ho wants to whitewash the issue completely, which is against the wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. Also, Sita Ram Goel, offers a scholarly perspective on the persecution theory [31](This is a non-partisan web site, not affiliated to any Hindu nationalist organization). Goel is a highly notable scholar in India who had peer-reviewed publications and has authored numerous books. He is a controversial scholar, but so are Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye'or and others frequently sourced on wikipedia (TerryJ-Ho did a WP:BLP violation on Pipes on Babri Masjid [32] but was instantly reverted and admonished by an admin) but the notability of these scholars supercedes the controversies surrounding them.Hkelkar 02:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, here are some additional refs:

"Annual reports of the Portuguese Franciscans in India, 1713-1833" by Achilles Meersman P238.


"The Colors of Violence: Cultural Identities, Religion, and Conflict" by Sudhir Kakar P17


Now bear in mind that this book opposes Hindu Nationalism and is critical of it in general

"Kerala Under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan" by C. K. Kareem (A Muslim, no less!) P 187

"The Protected Princes of India" by William Lee-Warner (Page 71)

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00185953&id=GciCSpe1OOMC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=The+Protected+Princes+of+India



I ask that these also be cited.Hkelkar 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The above ip is from TerryJ-Ho.Hkelkar 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, I belive his unscholarly, partisan (and, frankly, rather sick) views are quite self-evident from his posts above.Hkelkar 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Advocate's first views

From what I can see, you made a perfectly valid edit, and a number of users proceeded, in succession, to do huge blanket reverts on your work. All of your work was sourced (WP:CITE) and verifiable (WP:V), and there was no reason for any edits to be reverted. A policy which may be of interest here is WP:OWN, as it seems that there could be some sense of ownership of the article by this "Cabal". My opinion is that your edits should be allowed to be left in the article, and those who feel strongly against them can find well sourced arguements, in WP:NPOV again what you have presented (which is WP:NPOV as far as I can see). Let me know if you feel this sums up the problem appropriately, and if I've missed anything! When you're happy for me to do so, I'll contact the other parties Martinp23 12:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm editing this page because your reply was addressed to me. I am in agreement with your assessment. I would like to ask your opinion on my most recent citations of Tipu Sultan's persecution of Hindus (see above) viz:
"Annual reports of the Portuguese Franciscans in India, 1713-1833" by Achilles Meersman P238
"The Colors of Violence: Cultural Identities, Religion, and Conflict" by Sudhir Kakar P17
"Kerala Under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan" by C. K. Kareem (A Muslim, no less!) P 187
and
"The Protected Princes of India" by William Lee-Warner (Page 71)
which I wish to enter into the article as well.
In addition, I would also like your opinion on the diff I had entered earlier regarding the contemporary political controversy concerning Tipu Sultan's persecution that I also feel must be included (this edit presently stands reverted by the cabal).
In addition to the cabal members listed on this page, other members who need to be informed are User:TerryJ-Ho and User:Shezaad786 who have also been attacking me over this matter. Thank you for your assessment and please proceed with the notifications if you want.Hkelkar 12:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that comment was meant for "Cabal" members who might take it upon themselves to edit this page. The diff about contemporary controversy seems suitable - but with things like this, even when supported by quotes, it is important to be careful not to unbalance and article to another POV (not that the article was balanced as it was..). When adding criticisms, such as those quotes you've shown me, I think one has to be careful not to "over-do" it, and try to present a well rounded analysis. This is just general advice to anyone who looks at this page, and in direct relation to the quotes, they seem to be fine, as long as you explain any bias which the author may have had in writing them (that you can ascertain). Also, with a further look at the edits of others, they are definately content blankings, and are something I would revert and warn for if on Vandalism patrol. Rather than taking this side of the story further, I going to try to, and suggest that you do to, assume WP:AGF for their edits, at least until their input is sourced. Martinp23 13:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
(update)Message left, awaiting replies. Martinp23 13:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this.Regarding your comment concerning the biases of authors. I see no systemic bias in authors such as Meersman, Kakar, Kareem and Lee-Warner. they are all of different ethnicities, different nationalities and different religions and appear to have little in common other than their field of interest.All 4 refs are notable and from scholarly sources and satisfy WP:RS and WP:V.They serve to counterbalance the vast plethora of linkspamming done by the cabal users (both here and in Talk:Tipu Sultan), pointing to partisan (some of them even extremist) websites with less standing than my academic references above.Regarding my contemporary controversy edit, I think I have presented a well-rounded perspective. I mentioned both the pro and anti arguments, I mentioned key incidents during the controversy, I mentioned the partisanship of both sides (Left Wing + Islamist/Islamofascist vs Right Wing + Hindu Nationalist) and I mentioned latest happennings. If you could look at the edit and point out any bias there I'd be happy to discuss it.Hkelkar 13:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem at all. I wasn't sure about bias, but if there is none between them, then that's not a problem. I agree that your perspective in the conntroversey edit is well rounded, I think that when posting the comment, I was thinking along the lines of things to be careful with in future - for everyone. Sorry if it didn't come across this way. Martinp23 15:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for the second phase of the mediation process

For the next phase of this process, may I also suggest discussing the issue of this bunk statement in the article:

His army largely consisted of Hindus – Hindus like Poornia, Naniah, Kumaraswamy and Krishna Rao (commander-in-chief of Tipu's army) served under him and held high positions in the administration. In short, Tipu was an enlightened ruler, the sheet-anchor of whose state policy was the well-being of all his subjects irrespective of caste, creed or class. He took his stand on the bedrock of humanity, regarding all his subjects as equal citizens worthy to live in peace, harmony and concord.

On account of it being wholly unsourced.If one of the others has a source to provide then plz provide it.If Martinp23 feels that this discussion belongs elsewhere then please put it wherever you need to.Hkelkar 06:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of Sock puppets

I think Mujeerkhan,Hassan,iFaqeer,Mysorebhai,Tipu Hero, shezaad786,indiandesi and Naziakhanum are all sock puppets of the same person, which i guess is Mujbeerakhan, and he has deleted the warning on his user page. I also insist the panel to include Tipus Anti Kannada stance which is a fact and is in news of late. Thanks--Vikramji 10:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that allegations of Tipu's prejudices against Kannada need mentioning.I had done it before in my "contemporary controversy" edits but was mass-reverted.Hkelkar 12:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
A Request for checkuser has been run, determining Mujeerkhan, shezad786, indiandesi and Mysorebhai to be sockpuppets - if the above named disagree with this, then take note that checkuser is rarely (if ever) wrong. Additionally, I believe (based on similar edits patterns) that naziakhandum and Goingindia are also socks (WP:SOCK). The next stage, for me, is to asscertain their level of absuvieness (with diffs), to see if the case can be taken further (and this case greatly simplified). In addition to this, I would have to say how disappointed I have been, many a time, with the attacks and other edits made by users on all sides of this arguement. I ask that all personal attacks and any other uncivil comments cease immediately - if someone says something to you, do not, under any circumstances, retaliate (this only weakens your case). Instead, leave me a message here and I'll take action. Please note that this is directed at whoever involved who reads this page - no one in particular (though many have been guilty of this). Thanks, and please take heed of this advice :) (I will try to be available on #AMA-wikipedia on the freenode network. If I'm not, feel free to memoserv me (Martinp23)). Thganks Martinp23 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy report

Hello - I have been asked to carry out advocacy regarding this article by Hkelkar. Having considered this dispute carefully from a neutral standpoint, I have come to what I consider to be a fair conclusion. I would like to offer some advice for good article writing:

  • Always source statements WP:CITE and cite them appropriately.
  • Always ensure that you include verifiable statements for anything you say (WP:V)
  • Always ensure that you edit from a neutral point of view (POV) (WP:NPOV)
  • Always think before pressing "Save" - is your edit likely to flare up strong opinions? If so, then before making it you should leave a note on the talk page, and wait for an appropriate length of time before editting (ie - until you get some replies (or a few days)). Remember that edits can easily be carefully thought out and saved in a text file, before copy/pasting into WP
  • Never get into any form of edit war. If you make an edit which is reverted by another user, follow WP:0RR and initiate calm discussion on the talk page to build ocnsensus before editting again
  • If another user is incivil towards you, always try to follow WP:CIVIL and reply in a calm manner. If attacks continue, report to an admin
  • Discuss all major (proposed) changes on the article talk page.

I would cordially request that all editors of this article follow these recommendations to the letter, in orderthat we might make this article go forward with more information, not remain stuck in the past. Please remember that no-one (and no group of users) owns an article - it is improtant to respect this if the encyclopedia as a whole is to move forward. On the subject of sockpuppetry, the proven case at WP:RFCU against users including Mujeerkhan (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/mujeerkhan) is not, in my opinion, relevant, as long as those usernames follwo my guidelines above. Should personal attacks against other users continue to stem from these accounts, I can forsee that an admin may implement an indefblock. Finally, if I may, I would like to suggest that a 0RR policy be used on this article. This means that if someone edits in a way which you disagree with, DO NOT REVERT! Instead, intiated discussion here or try to re-word their edits. Please do not allow any more edit wars to break out. As a reminder, any sourced statement which is from an allowable source (WP:CITE) can be left in an article. If editors can find counter arguements (sourced, of course), they may add them to the article with links. Oh - and before I sign off, can I just say that the quotation mark images, when used in articles, can look bad - please consider just using "..." :). I hope that you consider this advice, and follow it -- Martinp23 18:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is an archived discussion between an advocate and an advocee. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MDP23/Desk/Archive/Three&oldid=952080311"